|
|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads |  |
DECEMBER 22, 2003
Commentary: Inventing A Better Patent Law Can Europe spur software innovation while safeguarding intellectual property? Patent law is one of the pillars of capitalism, a way to encourage innovation and reward creativity by granting inventors temporary monopolies on their work. The idea worked fine when the inventions in question were physical objects such as Edison's lightbulb or industrial chemicals. But tailoring patent law to the Digital Age has turned out to be fiendishly difficult. As the number of patents on software programs soars in the U.S., policymakers are revisiting current rules that some worry may be harming innovation. Meanwhile, in Europe, the question of whether even to allow software patents has unleashed one of the fiercest intellectual-property debates the Continent has ever seen. The problem: Until two decades ago, the only way to protect software against trade theft was through copyright. As is the case with a novel or song lyrics, a copyright guards the actual lines of code in a program. But a copyright cannot prevent someone from reusing the groundbreaking ideas brought to life through software. That's why U.S. courts have gradually widened patent law to allow software claims and even business processes, such as Amazon.com's "one-click shopping" technique. Trouble is, software is somewhere between technology and art. If patents were allowed on lyrics, for instance, the Beatles might have had a 25-year monopoly on every song written about yellow submarines. The battle in Europe concerns where to draw the line. On one side are Brussels technocrats and technology giants such as Microsoft (MSFT ), SAP, and Nokia (NOK ), all of which insist that Europe must do more to protect intellectual property or risk compromising its global competitiveness. "If you want to compete with the U.S. and China, you have to have patents to protect your software," says Jean-Philippe Courtois, the chief executive of Microsoft Europe. Adds SAP CEO Henning Kagermann: "What we'd obviously like to see is a global standard." The opposing camp is every bit as adamant. An army of economists, left-leaning politicians, and programmers such as Linux creator Linus Torvalds argue that software patents are a creativity-crushing weapon wielded by multinationals to bash upstarts. "U.S. experience shows that, unlike traditional patents, software patents do not encourage innovation and R&D," Torvalds wrote in an impassioned Sept. 21 letter to Pat Cox, president of the European Parliament. "They hurt small and medium-sized enterprises and generally newcomers in the market." Torvalds and allies would like to see Europe boldly forswear software patents entirely. Many see the fledgling "open-source" software movement -- which has particularly strong momentum in Europe -- as the Old World's best shot at challenging the dominance of U.S. software giants such as Microsoft. Allowing any sort of software patents, they say, could ruin open source by putting programs under lock and key. LEGAL MINEFIELD. Europe's patent battle is boiling over just as Americans themselves are reexamining software patents. The Federal Trade Commission and Justice Dept. held joint hearings last year to air complaints from tech leaders that the U.S. system has run amok. Corporations, many testified, are increasingly locked in an intellectual-property arms race, stockpiling patents and spending millions of dollars every year prosecuting or fending off patent lawsuits. "We are filing hundreds of patents each year for reasons unrelated to promoting or protecting innovation," said Cisco Systems Inc. (CSCO ) counsel Robert Barr during the hearings. "The system is in danger of destroying itself." The result could hurt America's tech sector. The legal minefield created by software patents makes it nearly impossible to write a program without tripping over somebody else's protected string of code. Even Intel Corp. (INTC ) Chairman Andrew S. Grove is worried about the impact: He told attendees at an October tech conference that the overburdened U.S. patent system might be creating a drag on innovation. Can Europe devise a better solution? The whole world is watching. For the past two years, the European Union has been working to tighten its existing patent laws, while harmonizing the overlapping and contradictory provisions in its 15 member states. One goal was to preclude the worst excesses of the U.S. system -- for instance, by setting tougher standards for proving novelty and disallowing patents on business processes. But the whole process was upended in late September, when the European Parliament -- under heavy last-minute lobbying by open-source advocates -- unexpectedly approved a draft law that effectively banned all software patents. Anti-patent advocates were jubilant. "More innovation will come to market if companies don't have to waste so much money on lawyers," says Laura Creighton, co-founder of collaboration software maker AB Strakt, based in Göteborg, Sweden. Trade groups, however, were apoplectic. The European Information, Communications & Consumer Electronics Technology Industry Assn. labeled the draft law a "disaster" that would "rob innovators" of protection and fair compensation for their work. Luckily for them, the European Council of Ministers has refused to sign off on the legislation, arguing that it is rife with inconsistencies. Internal markets commissioner Frits Bolkestein has even threatened to abort the whole legislative process and resort instead to multilateral negotiations among Europe's national patent offices -- a clear step backward for European standardization. One way or another, it's now likely to be another year before a new draft emerges. RAISING THE BAR. The sad fact is that because of such polarization, Europe may be blowing an opportunity to devise a more nuanced approach to protecting intellectual property. Software-patent opponents are justified in fighting to set the bar higher than in the U.S. But an outright ban is no solution. Such a move would put Europe at odds with the U.S. and Japan, as well as violating rules set out by the World Trade Organization. It could also invalidate thousands of software patents already issued by the European Patent Office, erasing billions' worth of intellectual property and jeopardizing patent licenses negotiated by companies across Europe. A ban also would fly in the face of history. For more than a century, notes Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner, experts with different axes to grind have argued that existing patent code isn't suitable to emerging technologies, ranging from railroads and pharmaceuticals to genetically modified organisms. But time and again, the law has evolved to encompass the nuances of new technologies. Lerner believes it's far better to let the rules work themselves out than to make industry-specific or technology-specific exemptions, such as Europeans are proposing for software. Such exemptions, he says, invariably become the subject of fierce lobbying motivated by self-interest and profit motives, not by notions of justice or social benefit. To find a middle ground in Europe, both sides must start by turning down the rhetorical volume. Opponents of patents should accept that an across-the-board ban could hobble a host of vital European and global industries, from automotive to telecom to medical systems. After all, most products from these businesses today contain substantial amounts of software; a ban on software patents could deny protection to, say, a new computer-controlled intravenous drip or a programmable switch, where the innovation itself is defined by the software. That would erode protection on innovation. Both camps also should work to preserve elements of Europe's existing patent laws that help limit some American-style problems. For instance, the Paris Convention of 1883 requires that for patents to remain exclusive, an invention must be exploited in actual products. That helps prevent companies from hoarding unused software patents merely for horse trading, as is increasingly common across the Atlantic. Lastly, Europeans should work to craft a new patent process that is smart and fast. That would include rapid publication of applications, speedy approvals, and ample opportunity for challenges after the initial grant -- a step the FTC also recommended for the U.S. in an October, 2003, report. By offering protection, not suffocation, Europe could set an example for the world in the best way to foster digital innovation.  By Andy Reinhardt
BW MALL
SPONSORED LINKS
Get BusinessWeek directly on your desktop with our RSS feeds.
Buy a link now! Add BusinessWeek news to your Web site with our headline feed. Click to buy an e-print or reprint of a BusinessWeek or BusinessWeek Online story or video. To subscribe online to BusinessWeek magazine, please click here. Learn more, go to the BusinessWeekOnline home page  | | |
 Copyright 2003, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
